|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: You're false. I'm true.
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
I would happily be a universalist and believe that all paths lead to the same God, were it not for what the Founder of my faith actually said ...
I think it would be more correct to say, 'what people believe he said.'
Possibly, but only if you are assiduous in applying the same qualifier to any words you didn't actually hear spoken.
Except that it's not just a matter of what was (or wasn't) said but also how it is interpreted. But this could develop into one hell of a tangent.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
I thought IngoB has addressed it admirably. “Having an opinion” IS asserting something as true. That's what “an opinion” is – something that I'm prepared to assert. Otherwise it's not an opinion, it's an idea.
My dictionary defines opinion thusly: "A belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty."
Despite what many people on here are claiming, there is a wealth of difference between belief and knowledge. Simply put we can have a false belief but we can't have false knowledge. When we assert a belief or opinion as true, we are claiming knowledge. The classical definition of knowledge is Plato's - justified true belief - although since the 60s, due to the Gettier problem there has been much disagreement as to whether this is adequate. I don't think it's too outrageous to say that outside of theology and po-mo, nobody thinks belief and knowledge are synonymous.
So, the OP is essentially asking, how are you justifying your belief as true in order for it to qualify it as knowledge? For the natural world, the process that uses a mixture of empirical evidence and deductive and inductive logic, known as the scientific method, is the most reliable method we know of, with all the caveats about provisionality, theory laden facts and shit. For goddy stuff, in the absence of empirical data, you and EE are relying on "pure logic". (I don't know what Ingo's relying on, he's wandering around a desert somewhere saying, "It's this way, I tell you" and getting very cross when someone asks him how he knows that). But as any philosophy student will tell you, logic can only preserve truth, it can't create it. At some juncture, if you claim knowledge you are going to have to justify your premises.
Your chain of reasoning:
quote:
...you must have angels before some of them can fall, miracles must in general be possible before this particular account can be credible, God must have integrity of character before I can trust the integrity of any specific revelation...
will eventually lead to a proposition that your specific God exists, which needs to be justified as true if you are to answer the OP. And when EE says he deduces stuff from the nature of rationality and the necessity of the moral sense, unless he can do more than simply assert his particular take on these concepts as true (and I'm not alone in having the opinion that he can't) then his claim to knowledge is as flat as the Yorkshire pudding I cooked this evening.
So, of course we can think rationally about anything and come to any belief we care to hold by whatever means we care to employ, but to claim knowledge is a different enterprise altogether.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
So, of course we can think rationally about anything and come to any belief we care to hold by whatever means we care to employ, but to claim knowledge is a different enterprise altogether.
There's a difference, but it's not a clear cut difference. We know the earth is round(ish), but how many of us have actually gone into the evidence in depth? In Jesus' time, a lot of people would have 'known' the earth was flat. We used to know that Newtonian physics described the universe - now we know that it doesn't entirely do so at all levels. What status of knowledge did Einstein's theory of relativity have when he first proposed it? What status does it have now?
I'm not claiming that belief in, say, Virgin Birth, has the same status as the theory of relativity, but I am saying that knowledge/belief is not as clear cut as you imply. To give another example: logical positivism is in itself a belief stance.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by grokesx
For goddy stuff, in the absence of empirical data, you and EE are relying on "pure logic".
Nope. Inference based on empirical data is rather different from "pure logic".
In fact, it's the same method used in science, funnily enough.
Big Bang: inferred from empirical data.
The theory of evolution: inferred from empirical data.
Dark matter: inferred from empirical data.
An intelligent creator of the universe: inferred from empirical data.
and so on...
Of course, people disagree (sometimes violently) on their inferences, because philosophical presuppositions feed into the process. But naked empirical data do not have little signs round their necks saying "please interpret me in a certain way", contrary to the insistence of many vocal metaphysical naturalists.
Honestly, grokesx, after all the years I've 'known' you (in the anonymous online sense both here and in the other parallel universe we used to spar in) I really thought you knew all this stuff! ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
[ 12. April 2013, 15:01: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
An intelligent creator of the universe: inferred from empirical data.
The data has naught to do with the concept of a divine creator.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
lilBuddha:
Wonderful confirmation of what I wrote.
Thanks!
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) Thank you for the much needed laugh.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
dear lilBuddha...
Glad to be of service!
Epistemology is a difficult subject, and, of course, in our struggle to understand the role of philosophical bias in interpretation, we all need a little light relief. I can see that you are no exception! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
(Oh, I nearly forgot... thanks for misquoting me! )
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
Despite what many people on here are claiming, there is a wealth of difference between belief and knowledge. Simply put we can have a false belief but we can't have false knowledge. When we assert a belief or opinion as true, we are claiming knowledge. The classical definition of knowledge is Plato's - justified true belief - although since the 60s, due to the Gettier problem there has been much disagreement as to whether this is adequate. I don't think it's too outrageous to say that outside of theology and po-mo, nobody thinks belief and knowledge are synonymous.
OK, I'm with you so far.
I'd add, though, that “believe” necessarily means “believe to be true”. Very likely, many of my beliefs actually are true, and most of them have some sort of justification. But of course some of my beliefs (such as the one that I'm a competent lawyer) that are both justified and true can be ones that carry very little conviction (if I've just lost a case), and some beliefs that are neither true nor justified (such as the one that I am phenomenally witty and attractive) can be ones that I'm utterly convinced of (if I am drunk).
The point at which I say “I know X” is when my belief in X reaches such a level of conviction that I remain assured of it in almost any frame of mind. That correlates somewhat with the objective justification for (and, likely, truth of) the belief, but not precisely. Which means that some of the things we think we know are untrue, and some of the things we merely say that we believe are true. Would you say that those true, and justified, but less than certain, beliefs count as knowledge?
quote:
So, the OP is essentially asking, how are you justifying your belief as true in order for it to qualify it as knowledge? For the natural world, the process that uses a mixture of empirical evidence and deductive and inductive logic, known as the scientific method, is the most reliable method we know of, with all the caveats about provisionality, theory laden facts and shit. For goddy stuff, in the absence of empirical data, you and EE are relying on "pure logic". (I don't know what Ingo's relying on, he's wandering around a desert somewhere saying, "It's this way, I tell you" and getting very cross when someone asks him how he knows that). But as any philosophy student will tell you, logic can only preserve truth, it can't create it. At some juncture, if you claim knowledge you are going to have to justify your premises.
I'm not sure that I am going to claim “knowledge” in that sense. Some things I know – I know what I have experienced through the Bible, prayer and worship. I know certain historical facts about the Church. I know a fair bit of Christian doctrine. I know that I have ethical convictions which I am not prepared to treat as subjective preferences. I know something about other religions. I know what many other believers have testified about their faith. I am persuaded by all those things, and more, that the Christian gospel is real, but that is an inference from (many, and powerful, and corroborating) things that I do “know” and amounts to a very strong “belief”.
I have other beliefs which are less strong, but which I am still prepared to assert as true. I would, for example, argue with IngoB that I am not called to be a Catholic, as I sincerely believe that I am not, and that the Catholic position on many issues is mistaken. But I could readily imagine my opinion on that changing. It wouldn't require much of a reinterpretation of the facts that I know to convince me that the Catholics have it most right of any of us. Hence my belief in Protestantism, though real enough for me to walk confidently out of IngoB's desert in that direction, is nowhere near as strong as my belief in Christianity.
To put it another way, in any context but that of strict philosophical definition, I'm happy to aver that “I know that my redeemer liveth”. I certainly do not “know” (by any sensible definition of "know") that the Catholics are wrong.
quote:
Your chain of reasoning […] will eventually lead to a proposition that your specific God exists, which needs to be justified as true if you are to answer the OP.
No, to answer the OP I need only show that I can rationally prefer some statements about God to other statements. And I've done that. We are well beyond the OP at this point.
quote:
So, of course we can think rationally about anything and come to any belief we care to hold by whatever means we care to employ, but to claim knowledge is a different enterprise altogether.
With you 100% there.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
Despite what many people on here are claiming, there is a wealth of difference between belief and knowledge. Simply put we can have a false belief but we can't have false knowledge. When we assert a belief or opinion as true, we are claiming knowledge.
If knowledge is justified true belief, then knowledge is a subcategory of belief. Saying that there is a wealth of difference between knowledge and belief is like saying that there's a wealth of difference between hawks and birds.
As first observed by GE Moore, one cannot (without some form of irony) say 'it's true but I don't believe it'. Nor can one say, 'I believe it but it's not true'. To assert a belief is necessarily to assert it as true. There is no way to differentiate belief and knowledge based solely on the internal psychology.
In my opinion, Gettier examples don't show that the definition of knowledge as justified true belief is false. What they show is that justification can depend on aspects of a situation that are not directly relevant. That's not consistent with knowledge internalism: the belief that I only have knowledge if I couldn't be wrong. Justification does not have to be so watertight that there is no possibility of error.
quote:
At some juncture, if you claim knowledge you are going to have to justify your premises.
No. Those caveats about theory laden facts and so on that you referred to when you were talking about 'the scientific method', they make this position incoherent. It is simply not true that knowledge has to consist in either justified premises deduced from nothing or in what can be logically deduced from those premises. If observed facts are theory laden, then using them as premises would be circular. Justification does not consist of building up a structure from unassailable foundations; rather it consists of plausibility across the whole structure.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
@EE
The phrase "pure logic" was Eliab's, but your:
quote:
I put my trust in logic, inferring from the nature of reality, deducing from basic truths about reality (such as from the nature of reason itself, or from the necessity of the moral sense), ...
is in the same ballpark he is playing in.
My point is that to claim knowledge from such deductions, your premises need justification. There is enough disagreement among philosophers (and scientists, for that matter) about the nature of reason and whether there is such a thing as a necessary moral sense for claims to knowledge from that source to be highly suspect.
quote:
Honestly, grokesx, after all the years I've 'known' you (in the anonymous online sense both here and in the other parallel universe we used to spar in) I really thought you knew all this stuff!
Yes, I do know you have been claiming for years that to infer an intelligent creator from the complexity of life, the universe and everything is the same as the inferences physicists make.
quote:
And I've done that. We are well beyond the OP at this point.
I don't think we are. I wouldn't use Yorick's exact words, but I don't see where have you got past:
quote:
But how can a person uphold their faith as true with any kind of intellectual honesty when they dismiss that of others, similarly based, as false? To do so brings all religion down to the same denominator, right? If it’s just a question of asserting that all other religions are de facto false, and yours is a priori true, how do you refute their contrary assertion with any sort of integrity?
Not that it matters. Better minds than ours have wrestled with such things for millennia. Argue long enough and one side will end up arguing for scepticism or some logical positivist bollocks and the other side will end up trying to show knowledge is nothing but belief or some po mo bollocks.
@ Dafyd
quote:
If knowledge is justified true belief, then knowledge is a subcategory of belief. Saying that there is a wealth of difference between knowledge and belief is like saying that there's a wealth of difference between hawks and birds.
And? There are lots of birds that ain't hawks and plenty of beliefs that ain't knowledge.
quote:
No. Those caveats about theory laden facts and so on that you referred to when you were talking about 'the scientific method', they make this position incoherent
And the position of not having to justify your premises makes the whole idea of philosophical argument incoherent. Which it sort of is ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
Justification does not consist of building up a structure from unassailable foundations; rather it consists of plausibility across the whole structure
And the whole structure clearly contains premises. They still have to be justified. I'm assuming that the inferences in question are valid - a big assumption, I'll warrant.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:
If knowledge is justified true belief, then knowledge is a subcategory of belief. Saying that there is a wealth of difference between knowledge and belief is like saying that there's a wealth of difference between hawks and birds.
And? There are lots of birds that ain't hawks and plenty of beliefs that ain't knowledge.
But there isn't a wealth of difference between knowledge and all the beliefs that aren't knowledge. Some of the beliefs that aren't knowledge come close to being knowledge. Some are much further off. Sometimes they can't be told apart.
quote:
quote:
No. Those caveats about theory laden facts and so on that you referred to when you were talking about 'the scientific method', they make this position incoherent
And the position of not having to justify your premises makes the whole idea of philosophical argument incoherent. Which it sort of is
You're saying that the distinction between belief and knowledge is incoherent. Even I wouldn't go that far.
quote:
quote:
Justification does not consist of building up a structure from unassailable foundations; rather it consists of plausibility across the whole structure
And the whole structure clearly contains premises. They still have to be justified. I'm assuming that the inferences in question are valid - a big assumption, I'll warrant.
Let's take Euclidean geometry as a best case for your argument. It clearly contains premises, doesn't it? No, it doesn't. Because if you swap out Euclid's fifth axiom for any theorem deduced from Euclid's fifth axiom you end up with an equally coherent system. The difference between a premise and a conclusion is arbitrary.
You will note also that you cannot justify the axioms of Euclidean geometry. Because that's what a premise is: something you cannot justify. If you could justify it, it wouldn't be a premise. Saying that premises have to be justified is incoherent.
With regards to areas of enquiry that aren't purely formal, it's even harder to justify a division of statements into premises and things derived from premises. Since Quine(*), we've known that the search for knowledge is a matter of repairing a boat in mid-ocean. Every proposed premise or starting point is always subject to the possibility of revision. We cannot ever start from scratch on a patch of dry land. Such a patch of dry land could never be reached by us.
(*) And a lot of other philosophers too. But while people have tried to accuse Wittgenstein, say, of being an obscurantist mystic, the accusation is utterly implausible when it comes to Quine.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
But there isn't a wealth of difference between knowledge and all the beliefs that aren't knowledge. Some of the beliefs that aren't knowledge come close to being knowledge. Some are much further off. Sometimes they can't be told apart.
You'd have to explain that last bit. It is doesn't make sense to me. Well, it does, in the sense that it looks like having your cake and eating it.
quote:
You're saying that the distinction between belief and knowledge is incoherent. Even I wouldn't go that far.
Actually, you pretty much are AFAICS. I'm not saying that at all.
quote:
Let's take Euclidean geometry...
Fascinating as the role of Non Euclidean geometry in the shaping of concepts of maths and logic is, it's somewhat tangential to what I'm on about here.
quote:
With regards to areas of enquiry that aren't purely formal...
I really don't know what you are trying to say here. Even if the distinction between a premise and a conclusion is not clear cut, that makes no difference whatsoever to the main point, which is that if you have a belief that you assert is true as against another one which you assert isn't, somewhere along the line you are going to have to do some justifying. Otherwise you might as well try to repair your boat by chucking water in the hole.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
I don't see where have you got past:
quote:
But how can a person uphold their faith as true with any kind of intellectual honesty when they dismiss that of others, similarly based, as false? To do so brings all religion down to the same denominator, right? If it’s just a question of asserting that all other religions are de facto false, and yours is a priori true, how do you refute their contrary assertion with any sort of integrity?
We've completely answered that. We can assert our faith as true with intellectual honesty so far as we have justifiable reasons for preferring our faith to the alternatives. We don't need to "know" that we are right, but we need to have some cogent reason for thinking or believing that we are right.
And we do. I can prefer Christianity to Islam because Christian soteriology seems to me to be superior. I can prefer Protestantism to Catholicism because I disagree with certain Catholic ethical teaching. I can prefer Methodism to Mormonism because I strongly suspect that John Wesley was a man of greater integrity than Joseph Smith.
The OP seems to be assuming that faith is essentially an arbitrary to commitment to one theory over others with nothing really to choose between them. As soon as you talk to an actual believer, and learn that we don't think like that, it's a dead issue. It becomes obvious that different faiths are in fact different, they differ in substances, and differ in ways that a reasonable person can find grounds for prefering one to another.
We're now onto the question of whether those grounds for believing can approach 'knowledge', and what that means in practice.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
We're now onto the question of whether those grounds for believing can approach 'knowledge', and what that means in practice.
I'm kind of thinking that's what Yorick meant all along when he asked about people upholding their faith as true.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
In a case of opposing exclusive truth beliefs, I'm not suggesting that both parties must necessarily be wrong, but that their basis for claiming to be right (i.e., that both they believe they are) is equally unsound because they cannot both be.
Neither can you reject means, just because they are used in conflicting claims. If I say "X by Divine inspiration" and someone else says "not-X by Divine inspiration", it does not follow that Divine inspiration as such is invalid. It could just as well be that the claim to have Divine inspiration was false for whatever turns out to be the wrong claim
Seems to me that in this case (the same means used in directly conflicting claims) that there is a logically valid conclusion along the lines of "this means adds nothing to the probability that the statement is true".
If you believe Y, and also believe X on the grounds of Divine Inspiration, then you might feel that an impartial listener should place more weight on X than on your "mere opinion" in favour of Y. Whereas the existence of someone else claiming Divine Inspiration for not-X is an indication that such a feeling is misplaced.
Which doesn't disprove Divine Inspiration; it merely renders worthless the claim of Divine Inspiration.
Or is that over-stating the case ?
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:
But there isn't a wealth of difference between knowledge and all the beliefs that aren't knowledge. Some of the beliefs that aren't knowledge come close to being knowledge. Some are much further off. Sometimes they can't be told apart.
You'd have to explain that last bit. It is doesn't make sense to me. Well, it does, in the sense that it looks like having your cake and eating it.
The 'justified' bit in 'justified true belief' does not make the 'true' bit redundant. You can't tell a justified untrue belief from a justified false belief (without hindsight).
Take a physicist at the start of the eighteenth century. He believed he knew that mechanics was pretty much complete as a science. His belief that Newtonian mechanics was correct under all circumstances was about as well justified as any belief has ever been. But it wasn't true, and therefore it wasn't knowledge. But there is no way in which that physicist could have had even an inkling that his belief wasn't knowledge during his lifetime.
There are some Gettier-type examples that make the same point.
quote:
quote:
You're saying that the distinction between belief and knowledge is incoherent. Even I wouldn't go that far.
Actually, you pretty much are AFAICS. I'm not saying that at all.
Yes you are. You are distinguishing between belief and knowledge by using a philosophical argument. You say philosophical argument is sort of incoherent. Therefore, you're saying that your distinction between belief and knowledge is sort of incoherent.
quote:
Even if the distinction between a premise and a conclusion is not clear cut, that makes no difference whatsoever to the main point, which is that if you have a belief that you assert is true as against another one which you assert isn't, somewhere along the line you are going to have to do some justifying.
Yes. We're just arguing over whether what people are doing counts as justifying or not.
[ 14. April 2013, 16:20: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If you believe Y, and also believe X on the grounds of Divine Inspiration, then you might feel that an impartial listener should place more weight on X than on your "mere opinion" in favour of Y. Whereas the existence of someone else claiming Divine Inspiration for not-X is an indication that such a feeling is misplaced. Which doesn't disprove Divine Inspiration; it merely renders worthless the claim of Divine Inspiration. Or is that over-stating the case ?
Yep, that is overstating the case. You are assuming that you are placing the same trust in the people claiming X and not-X, respectively. That's rarely the case in practice. Let's remember there also that Jesus explicitly used miracles to establish trust in His claims. Furthermore, a claim of Divine inspiration is an "all in" move. If I say "X according to Divine inspiration", and then X turns out to be false, I've pretty much destroyed my entire religious credibility.
So I would say that "Divine inspiration" typically marks a deep claim. It is where religions and people really put the trust afforded to them on the line. It is where supernatural claims will come to the fore, as a kind of guarantee. It is generally the "sine qua non" part of a religion. So these kind of claims are eminently useful, whether one believes them or not.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
As first observed by GE Moore, one cannot (without some form of irony) say 'it's true but I don't believe it'. Nor can one say, 'I believe it but it's not true'. To assert a belief is necessarily to assert it as true.
Is it, though? To me, the statement "I believe this to be true" is not the same as the statement "this is true". For example, if I'm at work and someone asks me whether a certain factual claim is correct I will answer "yes, it's correct" if I am 100% confident that that's the case and have the figures in front of me. If, on the other hand, I'm pretty sure it's the case but am not 100% confident I'll say "I believe it to be correct".
I may not go so far as to say "I believe it but it's not true" (the second part of that statement is a claim to certainty in itself, and if I have that certainty why would I say I believe otherwise?) but I'm definitely saying "I believe it but it may not be true".
It's the same with religion, except for the fact that there is no proof. And if there is no proof I can have no certainty, only belief. And if I only have belief, I may be wrong. I may occasionally have a high degree of confidence in my belief, but it will never reach 100% the way it can when I'm telling someone at work what's true based on the figures in front of me - and that means I cannot honestly use the phrase "this is true" when referring to the things I believe.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
As first observed by GE Moore, one cannot (without some form of irony) say 'it's true but I don't believe it'. Nor can one say, 'I believe it but it's not true'. To assert a belief is necessarily to assert it as true.
I may not go so far as to say "I believe it but it's not true" (the second part of that statement is a claim to certainty in itself, and if I have that certainty why would I say I believe otherwise?) but I'm definitely saying "I believe it but it may not be true".
Well, yes, if you have that certainty why would you say you believe it?
You can certainly acknowledge that you might be wrong. And you're signalling that by saying 'believe' rather than 'know'. But when you say you believe something you're certainly saying that you think it's more likely to be true than anything else. A statement that you believe something can't be disassociated from an affirmation of truth. You can equally say 'I believe it's true' as 'I believe it' or 'I believe it's correct'. ('Correct' and 'true' work pretty much the same way I think.) You could add 'but I'm not sure' or 'but I might be wrong' to all three of them. You can't add 'but it's not true' or 'but I'm wrong'. (Unless you're being deliberately ironic etc.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
...But when you say you believe something you're certainly saying that you think it's more likely to be true than anything else.
Climbdown much?
So, how exactly do you propose that that position equates in any meaningful way to 'knowing'?
(Nice post, Marvin. You nailed it.)
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think Marvin is right (but he might not be!). To say that I believe something seems separate from an assertion of truth. (Of course, it also depends on how we define 'truth').
Thus, I believe that life is worthwhile, but others might disagree.
And here we seem to hit on various ambiguities and restrictions on the use of 'belief' - thus a biologist would not say 'I believe in evolution', since 'believe' in that context just seems inappropriate.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Well, yes, if you have that certainty why would you say you believe it?
My point exactly. Belief - even very strong belief - does not make the thing being believed true.
quote:
You can certainly acknowledge that you might be wrong. And you're signalling that by saying 'believe' rather than 'know'. But when you say you believe something you're certainly saying that you think it's more likely to be true than anything else.
Perhaps, but who the hell am I to say that what I think about anything has any bearing on whether it's actually true or not? For that matter, who the hell is anybody to say that?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think that is an interesting point, in philosophical terms. Scientists tend not to say that they are out to discover truth or reality, and the idea of 'truth' seems more and more a will o' the wisp today. See under instrumentalism.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If I say "X according to Divine inspiration", and then X turns out to be false, I've pretty much destroyed my entire religious credibility.
So I would say that "Divine inspiration" typically marks a deep claim. It is where religions and people really put the trust afforded to them on the line.
One would think so. However, of the various self-proclaimed prophets who have erroneously predicted the end of the world, my recollection is that some of them managed to regain enough credibility among their devotees to do it again a few years later.
Now you may say, that's not mainstream religion, that's lunatic fringe. But maybe to an atheist all religion is the lunatic fringe of human thought ? Drawing a clear, objective and well-founded line between the sort of religion that we respect and the sort of religion that invites mockery doesn't seem easy. You believe in the Ascension ? That Jesus just rose vertically into the air as if in an invisible elevator ? And kept going until he reached a place called heaven ?
But maybe that's worth a thread of its own...
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
...But when you say you believe something you're certainly saying that you think it's more likely to be true than anything else.
Climbdown much?
If it makes you happy to believe that.
quote:
So, how exactly do you propose that that position equates in any meaningful way to 'knowing'?
If you say you know something it follows that you think it's more likely to be true than anything else is. Yes?
But where do I say belief 'equates' to knowledge? You might want avoid building straw men. You might not.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I must admit, this obsession with truth puzzles me. What concerns me is what works. Thus, some ways of living work for me, and some don't. I discovered that pragmatically.
Similarly, some types of religious symbol, ritual, story, work for me, and some don't.
I don't understand what it means for it to be 'true', and I don't understand how this can be known. OK, it can be believed, I accept that.
I can also see truth as something concrete and living, rather than conceptual. Ah well, a foolish ageing hippy am I.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Well, yes, if you have that certainty why would you say you believe it?
My point exactly. Belief - even very strong belief - does not make the thing being believed true.
Yes. But what is the relevance of that point? Certainty doesn't make the thing you're certain about true.
quote:
quote:
You can certainly acknowledge that you might be wrong. And you're signalling that by saying 'believe' rather than 'know'. But when you say you believe something you're certainly saying that you think it's more likely to be true than anything else.
Perhaps, but who the hell am I to say that what I think about anything has any bearing on whether it's actually true or not? For that matter, who the hell is anybody to say that?
Can I just be clear on what you think you're saying If you say you know that David Cameron is Prime Minister, who are you to say that what you think has any bearing on whether it's actually true? Just as if you say you believe David Cameron is Prime Minister?
Look, I really don't know what you and Yorick think I'm arguing.
Can we agree on the following:
A) It's possible for someone to think they know something when it isn't true.
B) If they think they know something when it isn't true, then they don't know it; they only believe it.
C) If someone thinks they know something then they're as certain that it's true as they are if they actually know it.
D) If someone thinks they know but it isn't true, then they believe it and are as certain that it's true as they would be if it really was true.
E) Therefore, at least some people who believe things are certain that what they believe is true.
F) In many cases, it's not practically possible for someone to work out whether they know something or only think they know it. In these cases, it's not possible for that person to tell whether they actually know something or only believe it.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
To say that I believe something seems separate from an assertion of truth.
It isn't separate from an assertion of truth. It might be a weak or faint-hearted assertion of truth, but it's still an assertion.
Imagine you ask somebody to describe an acquaintance, and they say among other things that they're taller than average and haven't shaved in the last few days. And then they turn up and they're a head taller than anybody else in the room and have a beard down to their waist. The description was true, but they could have narrowed it down a lot further. Likewise, if you think you know something you don't say you believe it, because it's more specific to say you know. And therefore if you say you believe it, that carries the pragmatic implication that you think you don't know, because if you did think you knew you'd have said so. But that doesn't mean that knowing doesn't include believing.
quote:
Thus, I believe that life is worthwhile, but others might disagree.
How can they disagree unless an assertion of truth comes into it somewhere? If there's no assertion of truth, there can't be disagreement.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I must admit, this obsession with truth puzzles me. What concerns me is what works. Thus, some ways of living work for me, and some don't. I discovered that pragmatically.
Similarly, some types of religious symbol, ritual, story, work for me, and some don't.
I don't understand what it means for it to be 'true', and I don't understand how this can be known. OK, it can be believed, I accept that.
I can also see truth as something concrete and living, rather than conceptual. Ah well, a foolish ageing hippy am I.
Some people seem to have the strange notion that Christianity is about assenting to theological propositions, rather than about a way of living.
I tend to use the word "truth" to mean a property of propositions, referring to how closely they correspond to knowable reality.
So statements like "truth is concrete and living" confuse me. Is this a way of saying that honesty or other forms of right living are more important than accurate concepts ?
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
No, it's saying that you are truth.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl
I must admit, this obsession with truth puzzles me. What concerns me is what works. Thus, some ways of living work for me, and some don't. I discovered that pragmatically.
Similarly, some types of religious symbol, ritual, story, work for me, and some don't.
I don't understand what it means for it to be 'true', and I don't understand how this can be known. OK, it can be believed, I accept that.
Your post doesn't work for me, so therefore, according to your reasoning, I can just disregard it.
After all, what you say can't possibly be true, because truth has no meaning (for you at least, anyway)!
(Or perhaps you do understand what it means for something to be 'true' when it concerns your own utterances? Otherwise why bother other people by saying anything at all?)
[ 19. April 2013, 20:45: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
Why is it that only religious statements seem to get accused of being "truth claims?"
Richard Dawkins and his friends came up with the statement "there probably is no God." That is a truth claim, even though it sounds like it includes a disclaimer. I mean, I have done my sums, and I conclude that there probably is a God - I have also included (what sounds like) a disclaimer, but I wouldn't get away with such a statement in a public forum. Atheists would wag their fingers at me and say, "you're supposed to say that you believe that there probably is a God."
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Why is it that only religious statements seem to get accused of being "truth claims?"
It isn't. The term 'truth claims' might not be used and these might be the only ones that press your button, but poor and even evidence-free assertions are made in all spheres of life; politics & lit. crit. for starters.
If you can bear it, listen to the unfounded tosh spouted by football pundits.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
It isn't. The term 'truth claims' might not be used and these might be the only ones that press your button, but poor and even evidence-free assertions are made in all spheres of life; politics & lit. crit. for starters.
If you can bear it, listen to the unfounded tosh spouted by football pundits.
Yes, but the point is that football managers never get pulled up for it (unless it does prove to be a load of tosh) as with atheists, most of the time at least.
I'm not complaining about football - Match of the Day wouldn't be the same if Alex Ferguson had to prefix everything with "I believe, but you may wish to differ" - but why do we need to make an exception for religion?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
It isn't. The term 'truth claims' might not be used and these might be the only ones that press your button, but poor and even evidence-free assertions are made in all spheres of life; politics & lit. crit. for starters.
If you can bear it, listen to the unfounded tosh spouted by football pundits.
Yes, but the point is that football managers never get pulled up for it (unless it does prove to be a load of tosh) as with atheists, most of the time at least.
I'm not complaining about football - Match of the Day wouldn't be the same if Alex Ferguson had to prefix everything with "I believe, but you may wish to differ" - but why do we need to make an exception for religion?
OK, moving away from football, let's look at politics. Very often there's no quibbling about what has happened, but a lot about the causes and the consequences. Whenever a politician states that X was caused by Y, another politician will respond by stating it was caused by Z! There you are, statements that are claimed to be true but with no evidence.
It's much the same as the atheist v theist argument, except politicians and football managers usually have more common ground.
To be honest I don't think it's worth worrying about "why do we need to make an exception for religion". There are plenty of people who don't understand bebop jazz and symbolist poetry.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I'm not complaining about football - Match of the Day wouldn't be the same if Alex Ferguson had to prefix everything with "I believe, but you may wish to differ" - but why do we need to make an exception for religion?
If enough people were willing to kill and die based on Alex Ferguson's post-match comments, or if entire groups of people were being persecuted based on nothing more than the stated preferences of Arsene Wenger, then I'm pretty sure what football managers say would be treated in the same way as the pronouncements of religious leaders.
[ 20. April 2013, 08:20: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If enough people were willing to kill and die based on Alex Ferguson's post-match comments, or if entire groups of people were being persecuted based on nothing more than the stated preferences of Arsene Wenger, then I'm pretty sure what football managers say would be treated in the same way as the pronouncements of religious leaders.
Ahhh, the persecution complex again... The truth is that 99.99% of the time, when a faith leader makes a truth claim it simply isn't a precursor to a holy war.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If enough people were willing to kill and die based on Alex Ferguson's post-match comments, or if entire groups of people were being persecuted based on nothing more than the stated preferences of Arsene Wenger, then I'm pretty sure what football managers say would be treated in the same way as the pronouncements of religious leaders.
Ahhh, the persecution complex again...
Persecution complex? Who said anything about persecution complexes? Who for that matter possesses a persecution complex?
quote:
The truth is that 99.99% of the time, when a faith leader makes a truth claim it simply isn't a precursor to a holy war.
99.9% of the time (while we're on about meaningless percentages) the decision about whether a statement is, or is not, a call to a holy war, or for that matter an unholy one, is in the mind of the person hearing that statement. Justifying a statement on scriptural grounds only makes it a truth for those who accept scripture as such.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
If enough people were willing to kill and die based on Alex Ferguson's post-match comments, or if entire groups of people were being persecuted based on nothing more than the stated preferences of Arsene Wenger, then I'm pretty sure what football managers say would be treated in the same way as the pronouncements of religious leaders.
"Treated in the same way"??
And what way would that be? And "treated in the same way" by whom? And why should the views of those who "treat the pronouncements of religious leaders in this way" be considered more important than anyone else's views?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
"Treated in the same way"??
And what way would that be? And "treated in the same way" by whom?
If you read the posts to which I was replying, the answer will be clear. They're not too far north of here.
quote:
And why should the views of those who "treat the pronouncements of religious leaders in this way" be considered more important than anyone else's views?
Depends who the "anyone else" is, really.
My point is, it doesn't matter if football managers and the like spout off utter bullshit because nobody treats their ramblings as the Word Of God. Sadly, the same cannot be said for religious leaders. With great power comes great scrutiny.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
One would think so. However, of the various self-proclaimed prophets who have erroneously predicted the end of the world, my recollection is that some of them managed to regain enough credibility among their devotees to do it again a few years later.
People also waste their money on perpetual motion machines. That does not disprove the laws of thermodynamics, or in any way suggest that physicists should not propose such laws.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Now you may say, that's not mainstream religion, that's lunatic fringe. But maybe to an atheist all religion is the lunatic fringe of human thought ?
It is fact that religion is not "fringe" even now, and certainly never has been in the past. And whether you believe in anything supernatural or not, to simply assign the label "lunatic" to what is at least one of the greatest fields of human culture, development and endeavor is just dogmatic trash talk.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Drawing a clear, objective and well-founded line between the sort of religion that we respect and the sort of religion that invites mockery doesn't seem easy. You believe in the Ascension ? That Jesus just rose vertically into the air as if in an invisible elevator ? And kept going until he reached a place called heaven ?
I am not sure about what precisely the apostles saw, but I believe indeed that Jesus used the physical symbolism of disappearing into the sky. Jesus was very much into physical symbolism, being a physical symbol Himself, and the association of the sky with "higher matters" is deeply rooted and universal in the human psyche. Hence this was a fitting thing to do. Obviously I do not believe that "heaven" is a physical place in the upper stratosphere though.
If we talk about drawing of lines, then I would simply say: start with the core, work to the edges. Maybe a liberal Christian can have an honest fight with a traditional Christian about the details of the ascension. But that's because they already agree about so much that this may become a core issue of contention. If however an atheists mocks a Christian about that, then it is merely cheap rhetoric. It is simply true that if the Christian is right about God, Jesus, etc., then the ascension could have happened as the Christian believes. Any reasonable atheist must agree to that. Hence it is proper to first address these "premises". If the atheist shies away from that, then it is fairly clear what to think of that mockery (irrespective of whether the ascension happened).
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
If we talk about drawing of lines, then I would simply say: start with the core, work to the edges...
...It is simply true that if the Christian is right about God, Jesus, etc., then the ascension could have happened as the Christian believes. Any reasonable atheist must agree to that.
Hence it is proper to first address these "premises".
That would be the way to go if Christianity could be established by logical argument, like a mathematical proof.
I suspect that most of us don't see it that way, and for many there's an element of "going along with to see where it takes us". And if it takes us to a place of inner peace, of freedom from the logic of materialism, of more genuine relationships with other people, of attunement to the cycles of natural time, of sense of purpose and direction, etc, we stick with it and call ourselves Christians.
And if it takes us to a place of being treated like children by a self-serving elite, of having to apologise for the inexcusable, of feeling obliged to profess the absolte truth of pre-scientific speculations etc [insert own bad experience here], then we walk away.
This may or may not be what the Bible means by "knowing a tree by its fruit".
But it means that something that for you is quite peripheral could be a serious stumbling block for another.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
